upstater1
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 26,615
- Reaction score
- 16,868
The article is at the link. In it, he does not say what you claim.
No worries. He wasn't posting facts.
Did you bother to read the article? Here are Mazz quotes:
If I went down to the playground right now, I could easily win 100 straight of 1-on-1. Assuming I was playing against third graders, of course.
No, UConn doesn't have a huge talent advantage against the teams they play. They have a teamwork advantage.
Defenders of women’s basketball take offense to this line of thinking, but so be it. To have a legitimate streak, well, you have to have legitimate competition.
What does this even mean? Why are they illegitimate? Because they are not as talented? Not as athletic? The fact is, the opposition often plays players who are considered MORE talented than the UConn women.
We can’t help but wonder if the deck is simply stacked.
I assume this refers to talent. He's saying UConn wins because it is stacked.
Last year, in the annual WNBA Draft, the first three players were all from UConn. Think about that for a minute. In basketball, often, the team with the best player wins because there are only 10 players on the floor at any given time and because one dominant player can stay on the floor for 90-100 percent of all play. UCLA under John Wooden had Lew Alcindor (or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) and then Bill Walton. The UConn women had three of them… at the same time.
This betrays a very shallow knowledge of what is going on. One of those players was highly recruited; the other two weren't. In fact, one of them was not even a top scorer for UConn. She was a glue player, hustler, hard worker.
Is Auriemma a great coach? Probably. But if he swapped rosters with, say, No. 22-ranked South Florida and gave UConn a game, well, we might be able to buy in.
Again implies that Auriemma and UConn are getting an overwhelming share of the talent.
The last time I checked, America was built on encouraging competition and challenge, not squelching it.
Here it is again. They are squelching competition how? By playing better?
It doesn't even make any sense, because you can't win 100 games in a row without squelching competition.
This sounds like Zach Piller in 2003 not understanding why the Titans lost.